As promised, here's a post about our recent Nature paper. I think the title of the paper basically says it all, although this is a the result of a very large amount of work. It also turns out that I am writing some articles on this for public consumption, which I will also post here, so here's the summary version.

I written previously, here and here, about the sterling work by PhD student, Anthony Conn, on measuring the distances to the almost 30 dwarf galaxies in Andromeda, as part of the PAndAS program.

Well, we now have the distances. So, the question is, are the dwarfs just thrown about at random (which is what you would expect from our cosmological simulations of structure formation), or is there a pattern. Here's the sample, on the PAndAS footprint:

The red and blue circles are the locations of the galaxies orbiting Andromeda. Just looking at them on the sky doesn't seem to reveal any structure, but remember, with the distances, we have the full 3d distribution. But even in 3d, there doesn't appear to be any particular substructure.

So then lead author, Rodrigo Ibata, and the rest of us ask "what if there is substructure in a subsample of the galaxies?" As you can imagine, with a sample of 27 galaxies, there 27 configurations of 1 galaxy, and 1 configuration of 27 galaxies, but how many subsamples of say 15 galaxies are there?

This is given by the binomial coefficient, and the answer is "A lot!" (well, 17,383,860). And so we set out to test each subsample, comparing their distribution of random samples of 27 galaxies.

To cut a very computationally long story short, we found a significant plane of dwarfs! They are the ones in red in the figure above. The plane is narrow, only 14 kpc, but immense, being 400 kpc in diameters. Here's the 3d view:

Quite clearly, the edge of the plane appears to be pointing straight at us!! But what are those arrows doing in the picture? I've also written previously about our measurements of the velocities of all of the dwarfs (there are actually several teams doing this) and so we know how fast things are moving. And what we find is there is velocity structure in 13 of the 15 galaxies in the plane; all those north of Andromeda are coming towards us, and all of those south are moving away. It look like the plane is rotating!

As that sinks in, watch this movie.

As an aside, the music is being played by Neil Ibata, a coauthor on the paper; not bad for a 15 year old (as you might guess, he's the son of the lead author of the paper).

So what does this mean? Well, as I've noted above, such a structure is not expected in our standard models of galaxy formation and evolution. There have also been claims of a similar structure, known as the Vast Polar Structure (VPoS) around our own Milky Way. Here's what it looks like

Dwarf satellite galaxies are thought to be the remnants of the population of
primordial structures that coalesced to form giant galaxies like the Milky Way.
An early analysis noted that dwarf galaxies may not be isotropically
distributed around our Galaxy, as several are correlated with streams of HI
emission, and possibly form co-planar groups. These suspicions are supported by
recent analyses, and it has been claimed that the apparently planar
distribution of satellites is not predicted within standard cosmology, and
cannot simply represent a memory of past coherent accretion. However, other
studies dispute this conclusion. Here we report the existence (99.998%
significance) of a planar sub-group of satellites in the Andromeda galaxy,
comprising approximately 50% of the population. The structure is vast: at least
400 kpc in diameter, but also extremely thin, with a perpendicular scatter
<14.1 kpc (99% confidence). Radial velocity measurements reveal that the
satellites in this structure have the same sense of rotation about their host.
This finding shows conclusively that substantial numbers of dwarf satellite
galaxies share the same dynamical orbital properties and direction of angular
momentum, a new insight for our understanding of the origin of these most dark
matter dominated of galaxies. Intriguingly, the plane we identify is
approximately aligned with the pole of the Milky Way's disk and is co-planar
with the Milky Way to Andromeda position vector. The existence of such
extensive coherent kinematic structures within the halos of massive galaxies is
a fact that must be explained within the framework of galaxy formation and
cosmology.

Comments

Congratulations on the Nature paper, it is a spectacular discovery. And thanks for mentioning my blog post. I'm not quite sure where this "fringe" starts, but I would argue that tidal dwarf galaxies are not that non-standard given that they are observed in the universe. Anyway, I agree that it will be fun to find out what is going on in these satellite systems and I look forward to the upcoming discussions on this issue.

Hi Marcel - Thanks for the congrats. I didn't mean "fringe"to sound like a derogatory word, rather I wanted to indicate that the tidal dwarf galaxy picture as an explanation of the majority of dwarfs we see is not the mainstream view. But maybe this result will change things :)

Don't worry, I didn't think that you used the word in such a negative way. Yes, the tidal scenario is certainly not the mainstream view yet, but your work does indeed support it in my opinion :-). I hope that these issues are going to be discussed more openly now (both among scientists and in the literature), and then we'll see how things will develop. There is a lot of work to be done during the next years.

The options are - either it is an extremely rare coincidence (which no one really like) or its origin is not as we expected (which means there is more to do - more bread on the table).

If it is coherent, then yes, it may well have been there 2 billion years ago, and 2 billion years hence, but if it is a chance alignment, it may be gone.

Brent Tully, who wrote the News and Views part of the Nature report, thinks the others are on planes also - so it might be several planes. This would be *very* unlikely to happen by chance, and extremely strange.

Funnily, the Andromeda Plane is aligned with the **Milky Way's** polar axis, and is roughly at 90 degrees to VPOS. Why? Nobody knows...

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Proton: a life story by Geraint F. Lewis1035 years: I’ve lived a long and eventful life, but I
know that death is almost upon me. Around me, my kind are slowly melting into
the darkness that is now the universe, and my time will eventually come. I’ve lived a long and
eventful life…

10-43 seconds: A time of unbelievable light, unbelievable
heat! I don’t remember the time before I was born, but I was there,
disembodied, ethereal, part of the swirling, roaring fires of the universe coming
in to being. But the universe cooled. From the featureless
inferno, its character crystalized into a seething sea of particles and forces.
Electrons and quarks tore about, smashing and crashing into photons and
neutrinos. The universe continued to cool. 1 second: The intensity of the heat steadily died away, and I was born. In
truth, there was no precise moment of my birth, but as the universe cooled my
innards, free quarks, bound together, and I was suddenly there! A proton! But my existence seemed fleet…

Everyone loves black holes. Immense gravity, a one-way space-time membrane, the possibility of links to other universes. All lovely stuff.

A little trawl of the internets reveals an awful lot of web pages discussing black holes, and discussions about spaghettification, firewalls, lost information, and many other things. Actually, a lot of the stuff out there on the web is nonsense, hand-waving, partly informed guesswork. And one of the questions that gets asked is "What would you see looking out into the universe?"

Some (incorrectly) say that you would never cross the event horizon, a significant mis-understanding of the coordinates of relativity. Other (incorrectly) conclude from this that you actually see the entire future history of the universe play out in front of your eyes.

What we have to remember, of course, is that relativity is a mathematical theory, and instead of hand waving, we can use mathematics to work out what we will see. And that's what I did.

First, the usual apologies! It's been an age since I have written here, but, as you know, the life of the academic is a busy one! Especially since I have just completed a book which is to be published next year. More on that journey later, but today a little post about academic toolkits.

This is something that I have written about before, and I know some of my colleagues and peers disagree with me, but that's fine as I think it illustrates that there is no single recipe for success in academia (Am I a success in academia? That's for others to judge, but I am still here after twenty years :).

What makes a "good" academic? In modern academia, we have to be specialists, focused on a generally tiny part of the immense enterprise called science. When ever I realise this, Kenneth Williams springs immediately to mind
Crossing boundaries and commenting on other areas of science that are not in your domain is met with suspicion and attack, and it's not just new ideas…